Mpkenning
Welcome Mpkenning!
I'm Rasnaboy, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Quotation marks
editHi, thanks for your attempts at regularizing quotation marks, but please take another look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Double or single, which says:
Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms take single quotes, with no comma before the definition (Cossack comes from Turkic qazaq 'freebooter').
Thanks. Nardog (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello. I apologise if I waste your time on this.
- I fail to see the utility of this rule. It is a rule that is inconsistently adopted among linguists themselves, and the reasons for using it seem tenuous among those who do follow it. (For example, two histories of linguistics I saw both used and didn't use them. One linguist I adopts the usage but admits its uselessness.) I suspect it's the observance of an empty convention. (Besides, it makes it harder to quote passages following this rule. When does a "simple" gloss become non-simple?) I think that an overwhelming readers neither notice nor care. As much of a stickler as I am, sometimes I don't even notice. It simply is unimportant and otiose.
- The rule itself may be clear, but it is not consistently used across Wikipedia—and more honoured in the breach. I have found whole pages where both single and double quotation-marks have been used for glosses, "simple" or not. Beyond "simple" glosses, single quotation-marks are frequently used for irony, sneering quotations, emphasising a use of terminology, for a word-in-itself, even direct quotations. If the rule had followed a current overwhelming usage of punctuation, I would begrudgingly agree. But most people do not care, and in their own usage use one or the other freely interchangeably. Ultimately we sacrifice simplicity for no additional clarity.
- Anyway, it's abundantly clear when something is a gloss, not because of the quotation-mark used, but by context: the propinquity and simple omission of a comma does that. We don't need single quotation-marks to do that.
- If them's the rules, so be it. But it is preposterous to have a rule that few follow and few notice. Is there somewhere where I can argue for this rule to be scrapped?
- Thank you. Mpkenning (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
edit
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
edit Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)